If you thought I was done talking about the Second Amendment, well you were wrong. With rights, including inalienable rights, there is a certain amount of responsibility when exercising those rights. We often, in the course of conversations about the First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech treat it as an absolute right. This is far from the truth. There are reasonable restrictions placed on Freedom of Speech, such as no calling for direct violence or harm to individuals or groups. There are also civil rules such as libel and slander laws, with categories for public figures, limited public figures and private citizens. So why should the Second Amendment be any different?

            Some may argue that the First Amendment and Second Amendment’s use of language is why there should be a difference. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” That is the First Amendment. As I quoted the Second Amendment in the previous post, I shall just put the operative phrase here “…. shall not be infringed.”

            For the Freedom of Speech, the operative word is “abridging” and defined as “1. To shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents. 2. To reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc. 3. To deprive; cut off.” In the Second Amendment the main operative word is “infringe” and is defined as “1. To commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress. 2. To encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon).” Similar meanings, but not quite the same. That is to say, there are similarities and difference that apply to these rights, right?

When we think of the preventing the Freedom of Speech, we often will imagine the second definition of abridge as lessening or reducing of one’s ability to speak on a topic or the third definition of being deprived or cut off. This would be the equivalent of standing on the public sidewalk in front of the state capitol building with a sign and the police taking that sign away because I criticized the current state legislature or governor. Well, they cannot do that, UNLESS there is a valid public safety concern. Even then it has to be narrowly focused on the message and the safety of the public.

That is to say that the sign has to be capable of inciting violence against people, people’s property, and the communicator of this message is aware of its capability to do so. That is not to say ignorance is a protection in law, it is in fact that it is a reasonable understanding that is what the message means. An example is if two people at different times protest against a law being proposed by their state government, one has a sign saying that the politicians are corrupt and in league with lobbyists. Their sign should not be confiscated and their right to free speech should also not be infringed. The second person and their sign is clear White Supremacy propaganda calling for the mass extermination of people of color and certain people of non-Christian religions, that is an example of what SHOULD be confiscated and infringed as it is no longer free speech but an incitement to criminal acts.

So, in other words, the government should not care that your feelings, or mine, are hurt by someone calling us a name. The government should not care about how you care, feel, or comment about religions, regardless of whether you are practicing that religion or not. The government should not compel anyone to do anything in relation to speech, religion, or protest so long as those things do not cross over to criminal acts. When it comes to the Second Amendment, what is an infringement of that right?

            To many, an infringement is any restriction at all. Period. End of story. The view any gun control laws as an infringement and should be unconstitutional. There are many on this side of the conversation that do understand that there should be some reasonable restrictions to ensure that we are responsible with our right, like with the Freedom of Speech. They understand the need for Federal Firearms Licensed dealers, Conceal Carry Weapons permits, hunter safety courses, and the like. What about the other side of the conversation?

Then there are those on the other side of this conversation that want the opposite, complete banning of private ownership of guns. They do not see it as an infringement because we have police forces, armed security, and standing military apparatus. There are some on this side of the conversation that also believe in reasonable ownership of weapons as well. They understand that some people use their weapons seasonally for hunting and occasionally for target practice for hunting as well. What about the rest of the citizens?

Many of us understand the rights we have are not absolute and that they shouldn’t be. That does not mean though that our rights end where other people’s feelings or ideology begins. Our rights end when it delves into the criminal. These criminal acts are infringements upon our rights by others. I have the right to keep and bear arms, that does not mean I have the right to use those arms to force you to do a service for me. You also have a right to free speech and to challenge my political ideas on the street. That does not give you the right falsely accuse me of a criminal action to shut down my speech. Why am I going over this?

As a nation, we have been having a rash of mass shootings. The shootings are damaging to the psyche of the people as well as to our reputation as a nation to people in other countries. The screenshot of the tweet after this paragraph is that of a German acquaintance that I agree with on a lot of issues, but one issue I am sure we will never agree on is the Second Amendment. I can understand why he posted this tweet, but I disagree with the sentiment of it because he doesn’t appreciate the importance of the right itself the way many Americans do.

He is not wrong at all in be tired of hearing about shooting after shooting after shooting. Most Americans are tired of hearing about them. The problem in America is not guns or gun culture, far from it. It is our inability to get corporations and money out of our politics. This is not just a National Rifle Association issue, this also includes the pharmaceutical industry, private health insurance, and various medical associations as well.

The underlying issue with the shootings is mental health. It is these kids and adults who need help, but their families cannot afford to get them the help they so desperately need. If we treat the symptoms, we can usually mitigate the illness. If this means paying more in taxes to setup a universal healthcare system so we can treat everyone via the taxpaying public, then I am for it. Are there issues with universal healthcare, sure but do those issues outweigh the need to protect our constitutional rights, especially to the Second Amendment?

No. I know when I first was told about the idea of universal healthcare, I heard the horror stories of not being able to see doctors for months and having to schedule appointments. Oh the horror, we do that now. I remember hearing similar stories about wait times in emergency rooms (also known as A&E departments or just ER) being upwards of four hours. Last time I was in the ER I had Covid-19 before the vaccines and I had to wait for about two hours before I was seen, so again not too far from what we experience now.

As I have started to look into and see the advantages to this system, the more I see that it can have a positive impact on some of our social ills. In my day job, I see plenty of homeless men and women that if they could regularly see a provider and get the medication they need, they could possibly become a better functioning member of society and then in turn could pay their share into the universal medical pool. From here we can possible get people that need help that are not homeless the help they need without financial ruin. It should not cost someone a year’s worth of rent/mortgage payments to have a benign tumor removed or for a family to go bankrupt because they have to pay for their child’s cancer treatments.

Would having this system stop all gun violence and mass shootings? No, I am not naïve enough to believe that, and I doubt you are either. It is however a better solution than going after law abiding citizens civil rights. We need to see that no matter the amount of gun control legislation that is passed in the country, it will not stop the violence that is occurring because people that are willing to commit a crime are also willing to break the law to commit that crime in any way, shape, or form to get the result they want. Let us not stigmatize weapons, which are tools, more than they already are, but let us promote the very help that these people, nay all Americans need in these times, improving our physical and mental health so we can improve societal health overall.